Although sexual difference is widely regarded as the concept that lies at the center of Luce Irigaray's thought, its meaning and significance is highly contested. This dissensus, however, attests to more than merely the existence of a recalcitrant conceptual ambiguity. That is, Irigaray's discussion of sexual difference remains fraught not because she leaves this concept undefined but because the centrality of sexual difference in fact marks a complex and unstable nexus of phenomena that shift throughout her work. Consequently, if Irigaray (...) is indeed the preeminent thinker of sexual difference, this is not in virtue of her recurrent appeal to a monolithic, readily digestible concept but rather somehow despite the absence of precisely this gesture. In this paper, I will attempt to elucidate the peculiar preeminence of sexual difference in Irigaray's work by identifying her persistent, though largely unexamined, commitment to transcendental phenomenology. Indeed, I attempt to show that the complex of phenomena of sexual difference emerges in L'oubli de l'air and The Way of Love as a modulation of Heidegger's own revision of transcendental phenomenology. In this sense, the peculiar preeminence of sexual difference does not mark the centrality of a concept but Irigaray's amplification of this Heideggerian gesture. (shrink)

Violence is signaled by a mark of discontinuity, interruption, rupture. The tripartite temporality of violence, with its strong focus on the present, points to the originary violence. Moreover, the violent event is structuring the order of the action sequences in an actual violent (embodied) interaction. The interactional dynamics in violent encounters between co-present actors shapes the specific forms of the experiencing in (and of) the violent interaction. Based on how violence is experienced in an interactive situation, the phenomenon of violence (...) articulates itself according to three coordinates: directedness, co-performativity and de-capabilisation. The outlining of the structure of the lived experience of violence is revealing something irreducible in it. To understand the experience of violence as such, I propose that we accept the idea of violence per se and depart from the idea that the acts of violence are essentially moral actions. The core of the ethical-moral discussion concerning violence should be grounded instead on the moment of conversion identifiable when we take into account the reaction to violence. (shrink)

There has been a wealth of literature on the relationship between phenomenology and psychoanalysis as well as a persistent interest in the exchange between these two forces of twentieth century philosophy.1 Even so, the relationship between the notable figures of the phenomenological tradition and psychoanalysis has been fraught: in spite of Freud being a contemporary of Husserl, having also studied with Brentano at the University of Vienna, references to Freud in Husserl's work are notably absent.2 For his part, Heidegger seems (...) to have been actively hostile to psychoanalysis, calling the conscious and the unconscious a "fatal distinction" and referring to Lacan's Écrits as an "obviously baroque text." He also... (shrink)

Review of Oksala's 2016 Feminist Experiences: Foucauldian and Phenomenological Investigations.

Claude Lefort’s theory of democratic indeterminacy has been an influential source among democratic theorists to demonstrate that democratic times lack absolute and determinate grounds on which to base and justify collectivities in the name of society or the people. However, few readers have paid sustained attention to Lefort’s advice that we should read Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological move from the idea of “body” to “flesh” to grasp the experience of indeterminacy. This article attends to this advice, and excavates how Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological (...) discussion of indeterminacy guides Lefort’s idea of democratic indeterminacy. More importantly, however, the article reveals that Lefort’s appropriation of Merleau-Ponty’s concept of flesh signals an ambiguity in Lefort’s democratic theory—an ambiguity that presents democratic indeterminacy either as the radical possibility of creating democratic collectivities, or as the impossibility of decisively achieving democratic collectivities. Challenging Lefort’s subject-centered interpretation of flesh, the article contends that Merleau-Ponty’s move from body to flesh is to emphasize indeterminacy as an intersubjective, worldly experience. This world-centered reading of flesh suggests that the promise of democratic indeterminacy lies not only in questioning the closure of collectivities but also in proliferating collective experiences in many areas of common life. (shrink)